dismissed EB-1A Case: Firefighting Technology

U.S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Services 
In Re: 4563711 
Appeal of Texas Service Center Decision 
Non-Precedent Decision of the 
Administrative Appeals Office 
Date : DEC. 18, 2019 
Form I-140, Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker (Extraordinary Ability) 
The Petitioner, a general manager in firefighting technology, seeks classification as an alien of 
extraordinary ability. See Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) section 203(b)(l)(A), 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1153(b)(l)(A). This first preference classification makes immigrant visas available to those who can 
demonstrate their extraordinary ability through sustained national or international acclaim and whose 
achievements have been recognized in their field through extensive documentation. 
The Director of the Texas Service Center denied the petition, concluding that the Petitioner did not 
satisfy any of the initial evidentiary criteria, of which he must meet at least three. 
In these proceedings, it is the Petitioner's burden to establish eligibility for the requested benefit. See 
Section 291 of the Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1361. Upon de nova review, we will dismiss the appeal. 
I. LAW 
Section 203(b )( 1) of the Act makes visas available to immigrants with extraordinary ability if: 
(i) the alien has extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education , business, or 
athletics which has been demonstrated by sustained national or international 
acclaim and whose achievements have been recognized in the field through 
extensive documentation, 
(ii) the alien seeks to enter the United States to continue work in the area of 
extraordinary ability, and 
(iii) the alien's entry into the United States will substantially benefit prospectively 
the United States. 
The tenn "extraordinary ability" refers only to those individuals in "that small percentage who have 
risen to the very top of the field of endeavor." 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). The implementing regulation 
at 8 C.F.R . § 204.5(h)(3) sets forth a multi-part analysis . First, a petitioner can demonstrate sustained 
acclaim and the recognition of his or her achievements in the field through a one-time achievement 
(that is, a major, internationally recognized award). If that petitioner does not submit this evidence, 
then he or she must provide sufficient qualifying documentation that meets at least three of the ten 
categories listed at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i) - (x) (including items such as awards, published material 
in certain media, and scholarly articles). 
Where a petitioner meets these initial evidence requirements, we then consider the totality of the 
material provided in a final merits determination and assess whether the record shows sustained 
national or international acclaim and demonstrates that the individual is among the small percentage 
at the very top of the field of endeavor. See Kazarian v. USCIS, 596 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2010). 
II. ANALYSIS 
The Petitioner claims to be board chairman and technology director at the I l I landthel ] 
I I in China. 1 Because the Petitioner has not indicated or established that he has received 
a major, internationally recognized award, he must satisfy at least three of the alternate regulatory 
criteria at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(i)-(x). 
In denying the petition, the Director determined that the Petitioner did not fulfill any of the initial 
evidentiary criteria. On appeal, the Petitioner argues that he meets four criteria. After reviewing all 
of the evidence in the record, we conclude that the record does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
satisfies the requirements of at least three criteria. 
Documentation of the alien's membership in associations in the field for which 
class[fication is sought, which require outstanding achievements of their members, as 
judged by recognized national or international experts in their disciplines or fields. 8 
C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 
The Petitioner argues that he meets this criterion based on membership with the National Technical 
Committee 113 on Fire Protection lTCFP), the I I Fire Standardization Technical 
Committee ( GFSTC), and the I Fire Protection Association ( GFP A). In order to satisfy this 
criterion, the Petitioner must show that membership in the association is based on being judged by 
recognized national or international experts as having outstanding achievements in the field for which 
classification is sought. 2 
As it relates to NTCFP, the Petitioner presented screenshots showing the following commissioner 
conditions: 
1 See the Petitioner's resume submitted at initial filing of the petition. 
2 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, Evaluation of Evidence Submitted with Certain Form I-140 Petitions; 
Revisions to the Adjudicator's Field Manual (AFM) Chapter 22.2, AFM Update ADJJ-14 6 (Dec. 22, 2010), 
https://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html (providing an example of admission to membership in 
the National Academy of Sciences as a Foreign Associate that requires individuals to be nominated by an academy 
member, and membership is ultimately granted based upon recognition of the individual's distinguished achievements in 
original research). 
2 
• Experts or technological backbones who are engaged in scientific research, production, 
supervision, inspection, management, and other aspects and are familiar to the standardization 
of business of the professional field and have relatively higher theories and more abundant 
practical experiences; 
• Staff who have professional technical titles of intermediate level and above; 
• Be familiar to and keen on the standardization work, observe the Articles of Association of 
Technical Commission, actively attend various activities organized by the Branch Technical 
Committee and fulfill the commissioners' duties and obligations; 
• Have relatively good writing level and foreign language level; and 
• Work in the organizations or legal persons which are established according to laws in the 
territory of China and are recommended by the working units. 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that the commissioner conditions reflect outstanding 
achievements as required by this regulatory criterion. Moreover, the requirements show minimal 
levels of work and experience rather than outstanding accomplishments in the field. 3 Furthermore, 
the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the conditions of engagement in scientific research, familiarity 
and keenness, and relatively good writing and foreign language skills are tantamount to outstanding 
achievements. In addition, the Petitioner did not show that recognized national or international experts 
judge membership with NTCFP. 
Similarly, regarding GFSTC, the Petitioner provided a letter from the secretariat of GSTC outlining 
the following conditions of recruited members: 
• Specialists with a higher theoretical level and relatively abundant practical experience in the 
field of fire protection and standardization; 
• In-service personnel possessing the intermediate level or above professional and technical title, 
or holding the post corresponding to the intermediate or above professional and technical level; 
• Personnel who love the cause of fire technical standardization, are familiar with 
standardization-related jobs and able to actively participate in standardization activities; and 
• An individual shall not be the member of more than three technical committees concurrently. 
Again, the Petitioner did not show that the membership requirements for GFSTC require outstanding 
achievements, as judged by recognized national or international experts. Further, the record reflects 
that GFSTC focuses on a certain level of experience and titles rather than outstanding 
accomplishments and achievements in the field. 4 Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that 
possessing a higher theoretical level, a professional and technical title, an abundant practical 
experience, and love for the cause of fire technical standardization are indicative of outstanding 
achievements consistent with this regulatory criterion. Further, the Petitioner did not establish that 
recognized national or international experts judge membership with GFSTC. 
3 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7 (instructing that relevant factors that may lead a conclusion 
that the alien's memberships in the associations were not based on outstanding achievements in the field include, but are 
not limited to, instances where the alien's membership was based solely on a level of education or years of experience in 
a particular field). 
4 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
3 
Likewise, as it pertains to GFP A, the Petitioner presented screenshots reflecting the following 
individual membership requirements: 
• Fire protection engineering technicians of the engineer level or equivalent to the engineer level 
and above; 
• Fire protection professionals have the college degree or above and engaging in fire protection 
jobs for more than five years; and 
• Personages of all circles keen on the cause of fire protection and supporting the work of GFP A. 
The Petitioner did not establish that membership with GFP A requires outstanding achievements of its 
prospective members. Once again, the submitted evidence shows that GFP A membership is 
contingent upon achieving a certain level of engineering and higher education rather than attaining 
outstanding achievements in the field, as required by the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(ii). 5 
Moreover, the Petitioner did not show that recognized national or international experts judge the 
outstanding achievements for membership with GFP A. 
Finally, the Petitioner argues that he submitted the "qualifications in the related field of Light 
Engineering and Safety Engineering, which are both representative of [his] field of endeavor." While 
the record contains selected translations for the "Qualification Conditions for Senior Engineers 
Majored in Light Industry Engineering ofl I" "Qualification Conditions for 
Engineers Majored in Safey Engineering ofi f' and "High, Medium and Primary 
Qualifications for Major of !Light Industry Engineering," the Petitioner did not establish 
how evidence relating to the qualification conditions of engineers in thel I show 
that the membership requirements for NTCFP, GFSTC, and GFPA require outstanding achievements. 
Again, this criterion necessitates the Petitioner to show that his memberships in associations require 
outstanding achievements, as judged by reco~nized national or international experts, rather than the 
qualification conditions for engineers in I I 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner did not establish that he satisfies this criterion. 
Evidence of the alien's original scient[fic, scholarly, artistic, athletic, or business­
related contributions of major sign[ficance in the field. 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v). 
The Petitioner contends that he "provided a plethora of original contributions to his field, resulting in 
widespread implementation of his developments, as evidenced by his numerous amounts of patents 
and subsequent business contracts." In order to satisfy the regulation at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v), a 
petitioner must establish that not only has he made original contributions but that they have been of 
major significance in the field. 6 For example, a petitioner may show that his contributions have been 
widely implemented throughout the field, have remarkably impacted or influenced the field, or have 
otherwise risen to a level of major significance in the field. 
5 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005 .1, supra, at 7. 
6 See USCIS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9 (finding that although funded and published work may 
be "original," this fact alone is not sufficient to establish that the work is of major significance). 
4 
I 
As it relates to his patents, the Petitioner provided evidence showing that he was named as an inventor 
for three Chinese patents: ' " "~-----------~ 
I t' and'~------------~' Moreover, the Petitioner submitted contracts 
between SDSIC and various Chinese railroads for the installation ofl I Tn 
addition, he offered contracts between GDSIC and Chinese businesses for the installatio~ o~ I I I for various projects. 
In general, a patent recognizes the originality of an invention or idea but does not necessarily establish 
it as a contribution of major significance in the field. Although the contracts indicate the business 
activity of SDSIC and GDSIC, the Petitioner did not demonstrate that the contracts involved the 
Petitioner's patents, as there are no identifying indicators reflecting that the intended installations 
utilized his patents or inventions. Even if SDSIC or GDSIC used his patents, the Petitioner did not 
show the relevance of the application of his patents inl • I and other construction projects. 
Here, the Petitioner did not establish that his patents rise to a level of major significance in the overall 
field rather than limited to some construction projects by his companies in China. 7 Again, the 
Petitioner did not demonstrate the influence of his patents to the greater fire safety field beyond his 
two companies. 
s· ·1 1 th P 1m1 ar y, e 1 . et1t10ner c aims a e mcu e ev1 ence o th th . 1 d d .d fh. IS pu bl" t 1ca 10ns. Alh hth t OU!!I e recor d 
shows that he provided translations of three abstracts entitled, i 
t' l 
I" and l 
I' the Petitioner did not show the significance of this material. Publications and presentations 
are not sufficient under 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(v) absent evidence that they were of "major 
significance." See Kazarian v. USCIS, 580 F.3d 1030, 1036 (9th Cir. 2009), aff'd in part, 596 F.3d 
1115. Here, the Petitioner did not demonstrate the impact that his written work has had on the field. 
Finally, the Petitioner presented five recommendation letters that praised him for his professional 
achievements but do not demonstrate their major significance in the field. In general, the letters 
recount the Petitioner's patents and claim that "[m]any fire fighting technologies invented by [the 
Petitioner] have obtained patent protection which show that their originality and significance have 
acquired affirmation from the national authorities" I [ 8 Again, patents do not 
automatically show contributions of major significance in the field unless the Petitioner can show that 
the field considers them to be of such importance and how their impact on the field rises to the level 
required by this criterion. 
Moreover, the letters make broad statements without providing specific, detailed information 
explaining how the Petitioner's contributions are recognized by the field as being majorly significant. 
For instance! ~laimed that the Petitioner "often participates in the revision of industry standards 
and other professional activities which makes him the current status and development direction of the 
firefighting industry in real time." However, the letter does not elaborate on which industry standards 
the Petitioner has revised and how they are considered of major significance in the field. Likewise, 
7 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9; see also Visinscaia, 4 F. Supp. 3d at 134-35 (upholding 
a finding that a ballroom dancer had not met this criterion because she did not corroborate her impact in the field as a 
whole). 
8 Although we discuss a sampling of letters, we have reviewed and considered each. 
5 
.__ _ ___.I discussed the Petitioner's plan "to optimize the setting of fire door and the key points in the 
construction of high-rise buildings," which "has attracted the attention of many fire technical experts 
and the interest of developers of high-rise buildings." Again, the letter does not provide further 
explanation describing the significance or amount of attention and interest his plan has garnered from 
the greater field. 
Here, the Petitioner's letters do not contain specific, detailed information explaining the unusual 
influence or high impact his patents and work has had on the overall field. Letters that specifically 
articulate how a petitioner's contributions are of major significance to the field and its impact on 
subsequent work add value. 9 On the other hand, letters that lack specifics and use hyperbolic language 
do not add value, and are not considered to be probative evidence that may form the basis for meeting 
this criterion. 10 Moreover, USCIS need not accept primarily conclusory statements. 1756, Inc. v. The 
US. Att'y Gen., 745 F. Supp. 9, 15 (D.C. Dist. 1990). 
For the reasons discussed above, considered both individually and collectively, the Petitioner has not 
shown that he has made original contributions of major significance in the field. 
III. CONCLUSION 
We find that the Petitioner does not satisfy any of the criteria regarding to memberships and original 
contributions of major significance. Although he claims eligibility for two additional criteria on 
appeal, relating to judging at 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(3)(iv) and authorship of scholarly articles at 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3)(vi), we need not reach these additional grounds. As the Petitioner cannot fulfill the 
initial evidentiary requirement of three criteria under 8 C.F.R. 
§ 204.5(h)(3), we reserve these issues. 11 Accordingly, we need not provide the type of final merits 
determination referenced in Kazarian, 596 F.3d at 1119-20. Nevertheless, we advise that we have 
reviewed the record in the aggregate, concluding that it does not support a finding that the Petitioner 
has established the acclaim and recognition required for the classification sought. 
The Petitioner seeks a highly restrictive visa classification, intended for individuals already at the top 
of their respective fields, rather than for individuals progressing toward the top. USCIS has long held 
that even athletes performing at the major league level do not automatically meet the "extraordinary 
ability" standard. Matter of Price, 20 I&N Dec. 953,954 (Assoc. Comm'r 1994). Here, the Petitioner 
has not shown that the significance of his work is indicative of the required sustained national or 
international acclaim or that it is consistent with a "career of acclaimed work in the field" as 
contemplated by Congress. H.R. Rep. No. 101-723, 59 (Sept. 19, 1990); see also section 203(b )(l)(A) 
of the Act. Moreover, the record does not otherwise demonstrate that the Petitioner has garnered 
national or international acclaim in the field, and he is one of the small percentage who has risen to 
the very top of the field of endeavor. See section 203(b)(l)(A) of the Act and 8 C.F.R. § 204.5(h)(2). 
9 See USCTS Policy Memorandum PM 602-0005.1, supra, at 8-9. 
10 Id. at 9. See also Kazarian, 580 F.3d at 1036, aff'd in part, 596 F.3d at 1115 (holding that letters that repeat the regulatory 
language but do not explain how an individual's contributions have already influenced the field are insufficient to establish 
original contributions of major significance in the field). 
11 See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25-26 (1976) (stating that, like comts, federal agencies are not generally required 
to make findings and decisions unnecessary to the results they reach). 
6 
Although the Petitioner has shown experience in the fire technology and safety field, the record does 
not contain sufficient evidence establishing that he is among the upper echelon in his field. 
For the reasons discussed above, the Petitioner has not demonstrated his eligibility as an individual of 
extraordinary ability. The appeal will be dismissed for the above stated reasons, with each considered 
as an independent and alternate basis for the decision. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed. 
7